High-speed Beveled Tip Versus Standard Tip Vitrectomy Probe: A Prospective Randomized Clinical Trial.

Purpose: To compare the efficiency of the advanced ultravit beveled vitrector probe (10,000 cuts per minute) to the current standard ultravit highspeed (7500 cuts per minute) vitrector probe. Methods: A prospective, randomized controlled trial was conducted on patients undergoing routine vitrectomy surgery for epiretinal membrane, full-thickness macular hole, and vitreous opacities. Patients were randomly assigned to undergo PPV with the ultravit highspeed probe (Probe 1) or the advanced ultravit beveled probe (Probe 2). The main outcome measure was time to completion of core vitrectomy and vitreous base shave. Results: Forty patients were enrolled in this study, 20 in each cohort. The average time to completion of core vitrectomy was 10.4 +/- 1.8 min in the Probe 1 cohort compared to 9.7 +/- 2 min in the Probe 2 cohort (P = 0.21). The average time to completion of vitreous base shave was 9.6 +/- 2.7 min in the Probe 1 cohort compared to 9.4 +/- 1.8 min in the Probe 2 cohort (P = 0.39). Conclusion: In the current study, the advanced ultravit beveled probe was noninferior to the ultravit highspeed vitrectomy probe when looking at the time to completion of core vitrectomy and vitreous base shave. The increased cut rate did not affect the efficiency of vitreous removal.

Rate of Unverifiable Publications Among Ophthalmology Residency Applicants Invited to Interview.

Importance: Unverifiable publications in applications for ophthalmology residencies could be a serious concern if they represent publication dishonesty. Objective: To determine the rate of unverifiable publications among applicants offered an interview. Design: Retrospective review of 322 ophthalmology residency applications for entering classes 2012 to 2017 at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee. Interventions: Full-length publications reported in the applications were searched in PubMed, Google, Google Scholar, and directly on the journal's website. Applications were deemed unverifiable if there was no record of the publication by any of these means or if substantial discrepancies existed, such as incorrect authorship, incorrect journal, or a meaningful discrepancy in title or length (full-length article vs abstract). Main Outcomes and Measures: Inability to locate publication with search, incorrect author position, applicant not listed as an author, article being an abstract and not a published paper, substantial title discrepancy suggesting an alternative project, and incorrect journal. Results: Of the 322 applicants offered interviews during the 6-year study period, 22 (6.8%) had 24 unverifiable publications. Two hundred thirty-nine of these applicants (74.2%) reported at least 1 qualifying publication; of this group, 22 (9.2%) had an unverifiable publication. The applications with unverifiable publications were evenly distributed across the years of the study (range, 2-6 per cycle; Pearson χ25 = 3.65; P = .60). Two applicants had 2 unverifiable publications each. Two of the 22 applicants (9.1%) with unverifiable publications were graduates of medical schools outside the United States. Among the unverifiable publications, the most common reason was inability to locate the publication (13 [54%]). Additional issues included abstract rather than full-length publication (5 [20.8%]), incorrect author position (4 [16.7%]), applicant not listed as an author on the publication (1 [4.2%]), and substantial title discrepancy (1 [4.2%]). One listed publication had an incorrect author position and incorrect journal (1 [4.2%]). Conclusions and Relevance: Unverifiable publications among ophthalmology residency applicants is a persistent problem. Possible strategies to modify the review process include asking applicants to provide copies of their full-length works or the relevant PMCID (PubMed Central reference number) or DOI (digital object identifier) for their publications.

The chick eye in vision research: An excellent model for the study of ocular disease.

The domestic chicken, Gallus gallus, serves as an excellent model for the study of a wide range of ocular diseases and conditions. The purpose of this manuscript is to outline some anatomic, physiologic, and genetic features of this organism as a robust animal model for vision research, particularly for modeling human retinal disease. Advantages include a sequenced genome, a large eye, relative ease of handling and maintenance, and ready availability. Relevant similarities and differences to humans are highlighted for ocular structures as well as for general physiologic processes. Current research applications for various ocular diseases and conditions, including ocular imaging with spectral domain optical coherence tomography, are discussed. Several genetic and non-genetic ocular disease models are outlined, including for pathologic myopia, keratoconus, glaucoma, retinal detachment, retinal degeneration, ocular albinism, and ocular tumors. Finally, the use of stem cell technology to study the repair of damaged tissues in the chick eye is discussed. Overall, the chick model provides opportunities for high-throughput translational studies to more effectively prevent or treat blinding ocular diseases.